6 honor, but our rights, as were our ancestors at any period. I do not differ widely with the Senator on one point. The man who would be faithless to his obligations, and would commit perjury, I think would be very apt to be a coward; but on the subject of duelling, I do not wish to be misunderstood either here or by pur people at home. I agree with them, that it is a barbarous mode of settling difficulties at best, and ought to be totally unnecessary in the advanced stage of civilization to which we have arrived in this country. The restraints of civilized life with us are generally sufficient, and they ought to be always sufficient among us, to oblige every man to suppress violent utterances and to keep within bounds of moderation and respectful consideration of the rights and feelings of others. The case may be quite different in semi-civilized communities, where there are no such other restraints. I do not know but the duel may be necessary there. In any community, if a man cannot be restrained from offering insult by any more elevated principle than fear, it may be necessary that he be compelled to respect the rights of others, even by the fear of combat. And I do not say that I should not, in an extreme case, maintain my own rights in that barbarous way here, whatever might be thought of it at home. I have said enough, Mr. President, I trust, on that point. The Senator charges us all with perjury and disloyalty to the Constitution. Just see, now, how inconsistent a gentleman, in the heat of argument, may become. He has taken here an oath to support the Constitution ; the same oath which we have taken, and which he accuses us of breaking; and yet he announced to us that he is impatient—nay, eager—for a symbol of war from the Old Dominion against the Constitution and the Union. I do not use his exact language, though I have it before me. He is ready and eager to second her motion. “One blast from her bugle horn,” he said, “would call to their feet a million of men.” A million of men, sir! A million of men for what? Why, a million of men to topple down the pillars of this Republic, and overwhelm the whole country in one universal ruin. And all this the million of men roused by the bugle horn of the Old Dominion are to do next March, if a Republican shall be elected, constitutionally elected President, in November. Does he not stand on high ground, sir? I ask him to say, for himself, that he occupies high vantage ground, while charging us with treason and violation of our oaths, when he is with the same breath threatening to pull down the pillars of the Union. Sir, if this is not treason, then I do not know what it is. If it is not a violation of the oath to support the Constitution, then I do not understand .the import of the words. I know, indeed, that these things are said in the heat of debate, and may mean but very little; but they go out to the. world as deliberate debates, and therefore must be noticed31611 here. sons And now I dismiss this point, and pass from^aS the declamation to the argument of the gentle11.0^ man from Georgia; for, as I have said, he istion among the ablest of his class. No man is more^aw competent to make out a case against the Re-on 1 publicans or the people of the North. He has8^ deliberated long; he has studied deeply, notam merely in the history of ancient and modern Europe, but even in the history of ancient Greece, to fortify his argument. What does t10 - ■ — ■ it: his accusation amount to ? First, we have not been quite nimble-footed enough in executing his fugitive law. He gives us not one instance, not one case of delinquency. He is content with making a general charge, that we are faithless to the Constitution in this respect. Now, sir, I know of no case of resistance to the execution of the fugitive law in the State of Ohio. I know a great many men there who believe, before God and man, that it is unconstitutional, yet I know of no man who has stood forth to resist its execution. On the contrary, whenever a case under it has come before our courts, it has been carefully scrutinized, and the law has been most rigorously executed. There have been doubtful cases; there have even been cases in which there was little room left for doubt that the seeming remedies granted by that law have been perverted to the atrocious purpose of kidnapping and carrying freemen into slavery. A citizen of Ohio, not long ago, whose name I do not now recollect, was taken to St. Louis, and there imprisoned under State law, to be sold into slavery to pay the charges of his detention, until he was released by the people of Ohio. This was no solitary case; such cases frequently occur. I meet the general charge with a general denial, and I assert, that the people of Ohio have not been faithless in the execution of this most rigorous, odious, and, as I believe, in many of its provisions, unconstitutional law. I pass briefly over the point that the constitutional provision concerning fugitives devolves on the State Governments, and notupon Congress, the courts having adjudicated that point against my opinions. I will say, however, that no lawyer would agree with the courts, were it a case of the first impression. I deny, moreover, that the decisions of the courts have been uniform, as the Senator from Georgia claims. Judge Hornblower, of New Jersey, on habeas corpus, held the law unconstitutional, and discharged the fugitive for that reason. We have one Senator among us here [Mr. Wigfall] who thinks that the late Mr. Webster knew less of constitutional law than most lai la; si< ar P< a: c d I 1 other men. It is not for me to re-establish Mr. Webster; but whether he knew much or little, it was his deliberate opinion, that the law had no warrant in the Constitution, though he deferred to decisions of the courts. I come now to your new fugitive bill, which, in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=